• 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
Beynenson Law
Beynenson Law
    • No-Fault Collections
    • Billing and Collections
    • Provider Defense
  • How We Work
  • About
    • All Research & Data
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Arbitration Results by Provider
    • Ask No-Fault AI
  • Contact
  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
    • No-Fault Collections
    • Billing and Collections
    • Provider Defense
  • How We Work
  • About
    • All Research & Data
    • Search Case Law & Regulations
    • New Decisions
    • Decisions by Court
    • Legal Questions
    • No-Fault Regulations
    • Claim Process & Deadlines
    • Arbitrator Scorecard
    • Arbitration Results by Provider
    • Ask No-Fault AI
  • Contact
February 27, 2007

Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/fair-price-med-supply-corp-v-clarendon-natl-ins-co-2007-ny-slip-op-50375u/

Court
Appellate Term, Second Department
Decided
February 27, 2007
Citation
2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U) · 14 Misc 3d 143(A)
Posture
Summary judgment
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Provider's prima facie case
Legal questions
Claimant's prima facie case on motions (see the maps)
Cite as
Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 143(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U) (App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2007)

Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.

Summary

Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.

The provider failed to authenticate its supporting documents as business records through an officer with the required personal knowledge. The insurer challenged the corporate officer's affidavit supporting the provider's summary judgment motion on assigned no-fault claims. The affidavit described the documents conclusorily without establishing familiarity with the provider's practices and procedures. Following Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., the Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed denial of the motion for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U))

[*1]
Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Clarendon Natl. Ins. Co.
2007 NY Slip Op 50375(U) [14 Misc 3d 143(A)]
Decided on February 27, 2007
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on February 27, 2007

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS


PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., RIOS and BELEN, JJ
2006-195 K C.
Fair Price Medical Supply Corp. a/a/o Mikhail Pantelynko, Appellant,

against

Clarendon National Insurance Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Bernard J. Graham, J.), entered November 23, 2005. The order denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was supported by an affirmation from plaintiff’s counsel, an affidavit by a corporate officer of plaintiff, and various documents annexed thereto. The affidavit executed by plaintiff’s corporate officer stated in a conclusory manner that the documents attached to plaintiff’s motion papers were plaintiff’s
business records. In opposition, defendant argued, inter alia, that the affidavit by plaintiff’s corporate officer failed to lay a proper foundation for the documents annexed
to plaintiff’s moving papers and that, as a result, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of its motion for summary judgment.

Inasmuch as the affidavit submitted by plaintiff’s corporate officer was insufficient to establish that said officer possessed personal knowledge of plaintiff’s practices and procedures so as to lay a foundation for the admission, as business records, of the documents annexed to plaintiff’s moving papers, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of its entitlement to summary judgment (see Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., ___ Misc 3d ___, 2006 NY Slip Op 26483 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud
Dists]). Consequently, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

Weston Patterson, J.P., Rios and Belen, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: February 27, 2007

Legal questions

A question of no-fault law this decision rules on, from our Legal Questions pages. Bars count the decisions on the question by year and court, coloured by category; circles are this decision and the decisions on the question it cites or that cite it. Point at a bar or circle for details. The categories and summaries are Beynenson Law’s classification, made by a language model and checked by a second reading.

Claimant's prima facie case on motions

Open the full map

On summary judgment or another pretrial motion, what must a no-fault claimant show to establish its prima facie case?

This decision: Insufficient: claim forms not shown admissible as business records / merits of claim not proved

Held the provider failed its prima facie showing because its corporate officer's conclusory affidavit did not show personal knowledge of the provider's practices to lay a business-records foundation for the annexed documents.

  • Court of AppealsCt App 2
  • Appellate DivisionApp Div 81
  • Appellate TermApp Term 843
  • Trial courtsTrial 139
2015, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2007, Court of Appeals: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2022, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2019, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2014, Appellate Division: 10 decisions (9 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2013, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2012, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2011, Appellate Division: 11 decisions (11 Proof sufficient)2010, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2009, Appellate Division: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Other element missing)2008, Appellate Division: 8 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Appellate Division: 16 decisions (13 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2006, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Other element missing)2005, Appellate Division: 5 decisions (5 Proof sufficient)2004, Appellate Division: 11 decisions (10 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2026, Appellate Division: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2003, Appellate Division: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown)2022, Appellate Term: 14 decisions (2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 12 Overdue not shown)2021, Appellate Term: 5 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 4 Overdue not shown)2020, Appellate Term: 13 decisions (13 Overdue not shown)2019, Appellate Term: 23 decisions (22 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2018, Appellate Term: 26 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 22 Overdue not shown)2017, Appellate Term: 38 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 34 Overdue not shown)2016, Appellate Term: 41 decisions (7 Proof sufficient, 34 Overdue not shown)2015, Appellate Term: 44 decisions (12 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 30 Overdue not shown, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2014, Appellate Term: 22 decisions (10 Proof sufficient, 12 Overdue not shown)2013, Appellate Term: 34 decisions (17 Proof sufficient, 11 Overdue not shown, 6 Business-record foundation lacking)2012, Appellate Term: 32 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 11 Overdue not shown, 16 Business-record foundation lacking)2011, Appellate Term: 29 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 13 Overdue not shown, 9 Business-record foundation lacking)2010, Appellate Term: 36 decisions (22 Proof sufficient, 3 Mailing/receipt not shown, 10 Business-record foundation lacking, 1 Other element missing)2009, Appellate Term: 52 decisions (28 Proof sufficient, 3 Mailing/receipt not shown, 21 Business-record foundation lacking)2008, Appellate Term: 49 decisions (16 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 32 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Appellate Term: 104 decisions (8 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 94 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Appellate Term: 112 decisions (76 Proof sufficient, 26 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown, 6 Business-record foundation lacking, 3 Other element missing)2005, Appellate Term: 90 decisions (84 Proof sufficient, 5 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2004, Appellate Term: 57 decisions (43 Proof sufficient, 10 Mailing/receipt not shown, 4 Other element missing)2003, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (7 Proof sufficient)2023, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (3 Overdue not shown)2024, Appellate Term: 7 decisions (1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 6 Overdue not shown)2025, Appellate Term: 3 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown)2026, Appellate Term: 2 decisions (2 Mailing/receipt not shown)2023, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Proof sufficient)2022, Trial courts: 4 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 2 Overdue not shown)2021, Trial courts: 11 decisions (6 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 2 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2020, Trial courts: 5 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2019, Trial courts: 6 decisions (5 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2018, Trial courts: 2 decisions (2 Overdue not shown)2017, Trial courts: 3 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2016, Trial courts: 4 decisions (4 Proof sufficient)2013, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2012, Trial courts: 5 decisions (4 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2011, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2010, Trial courts: 3 decisions (2 Proof sufficient, 1 Business-record foundation lacking)2009, Trial courts: 7 decisions (7 Proof sufficient)2008, Trial courts: 14 decisions (8 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown, 1 Overdue not shown, 4 Business-record foundation lacking)2007, Trial courts: 7 decisions (5 Proof sufficient, 2 Business-record foundation lacking)2006, Trial courts: 16 decisions (13 Proof sufficient, 2 Overdue not shown, 1 Other element missing)2005, Trial courts: 22 decisions (14 Proof sufficient, 5 Mailing/receipt not shown, 3 Business-record foundation lacking)2004, Trial courts: 15 decisions (9 Proof sufficient, 2 Mailing/receipt not shown, 4 Other element missing)2025, Trial courts: 2 decisions (1 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2026, Trial courts: 4 decisions (3 Proof sufficient, 1 Mailing/receipt not shown)2014, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2015, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)2024, Trial courts: 1 decision (1 Proof sufficient)This decision
20052010201520202025
Proof sufficientMailing/receipt not shownOverdue not shownBusiness-record foundation lackingOther element missingThis decisionCites it or cited by itCited or followed

Of the 1,065 decisions on this question in the Second Department courts and the Court of Appeals, 208 (this one included) are in the same category.

Cited in this decision

A label shows how this decision treated the case it cites.

  • Dan Med., P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2006 NY Slip Op 26483) FollowedThe provider failed to establish its prima facie case because its corporate officer did not lay a business-records foundation for the claim documents.

Similar decisions

  • Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Allstate Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50608(U))The provider's officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation, defeating its prima facie summary judgment showing.
  • Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Tri-State Consumer Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50152(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to establish a business-records foundation for the documents supporting summary judgment.
  • Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50168(U))The provider's corporate officer affidavit failed to lay the business-records foundation needed to establish a prima facie case.
  • Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50357(U))The provider and insurer failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment because their affidavits lacked the necessary personal knowledge.
  • Fair Price Med. Supply Corp. v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. (2007 NY Slip Op 50237(U))The provider's officer failed to establish personal knowledge sufficient to admit the claim documents as business records.
Beynenson Law

No-fault collections for healthcare providers across New York State, with billing available together with collections.

Request a free claims review
About the firm

Contact

  • East Hampton, New York

  • 347-746-6001
  • contact@beynensonlaw.com
  • Contact form

Services

  • No-Fault Collections
  • Billing and Collections
  • Provider Defense

Research & Data

  • All Research & Data
  • Search Case Law & Regulations
  • New Decisions
  • Decisions by Court
  • Legal Questions
  • No-Fault Regulations
  • Claim Process & Deadlines
  • Arbitrator Scorecard
  • Arbitration Results by Provider
  • Ask No-Fault AI

©2026 The Beynenson Law Group, PC. Terms of Use Privacy Policy

Site by khrystev.dev

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This website provides general information, not legal advice, and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Do not send confidential information through this site.